4k Monitor Recomendations

[RevTadd]

I've been using two Dell 2415Qs for the past 6 or 7 years and they've been serving me well, but recently one of them (lefty) has started going on the fritz and my troubleshooting efforts have been largely unsuccessful. The downside of a two monitor set-up though means I'll need to replace both. My 2415Qs were pretty good back in the day (when there weren't many options for sub 32in 4k monitors), but monitors have come a long way since and I want to find a good replacement option that will last another 6-7 years (or more).

 

From my own researching I've been looking at the LG 27GN950-B or something similar to it, but want to make sure I haven't overlooked any good options. Any recommendations would be much appreciated.

 

What I'm looking for (generally in order of importance):

• Resolution: must be 4K, very strong preference for 120hz (or higher) but not an absolute deal breaker if 60Hz only
• Size: must be 24-27in (24in would be most preferable, but the market seems pretty limited these days for 4k 24in options)
• Inputs: must have at least 3 inputs (though if inputs 2 and 3 are only capable of 4k 60hz, that is not an issue)
• Audio: must have an audio out option to pass through audio from HDMI / DisplayPort to my speakers
• Curviture: must be flat (not curved)
• Bezels: very strong preference for super-thin bezels (or at the very least, super-thin side bezels)
• UI: strong preference for quick switchability between inputs (the slow switching of my 2415Qs has been a source of annoyance over the years)
• G-Sync: moderate preference for g-sync compatibility
• Weight: mild preference for lighter weight / thinner size so they can move around easier on my monitor arms
• HDR / color accuracy: the more capable the better, but I'm not doing any content creation or color critical work
• Response time: quicker is better, but I'm also not a competitive gamer
• Price: indifferent on price

 

 

[RONOTHAN##]

The Gigabyte M28U is a pretty good option. It's a pretty nice panel with a ton of features for a pretty good price. It has all the features you wanted with a very easy to navigate OSD. It's an inch bigger than you wanted, but the pixel density is still tight enough that it really doesn't matter. Personally I'm using the Aorus FI32U, which is basically the same monitor but with a more gamer stand and a bigger panel, and I really do like it. My biggest issue with it is that I need to have Windows scaling enabled, but that's more a problem with Windows scaling. It has very quick input switching, with a built in KVM switch as well. It has audio outs that are routed by default through USB (though I do believe you can change that to DP audio in settings). It has 4 inputs, 2 HDMI 2.1 (real 2.1, so 4k 120Hz), 1 DP1.4 with DSC, and 1 USB Type C with power delivery, also supports DP1.4 with DSC (though it needs to be enabled in the OSD).

[rotexen]

3 hours ago, RONOTHAN## said:

The Gigabyte M28U is a pretty good option. It's a pretty nice panel with a ton of features for a pretty good price. It has all the features you wanted with a very easy to navigate OSD. It's an inch bigger than you wanted, but the pixel density is still tight enough that it really doesn't matter. Personally I'm using the Aorus FI32U, which is basically the same monitor but with a more gamer stand and a bigger panel, and I really do like it. My biggest issue with it is that I need to have Windows scaling enabled, but that's more a problem with Windows scaling. It has very quick input switching, with a built in KVM switch as well. It has audio outs that are routed by default through USB (though I do believe you can change that to DP audio in settings). It has 4 inputs, 2 HDMI 2.1 (real 2.1, so 4k 120Hz), 1 DP1.4 with DSC, and 1 USB Type C with power delivery, also supports DP1.4 with DSC (though it needs to be enabled in the OSD).

Gigabyte M28U is pretty good 

[Stahlmann]

22 hours ago, RONOTHAN## said:

Personally I'm using the Aorus FI32U

The FI32U cannot really be used to draw too many conclusions on other models. The M28U (which i'd recommend) has a different panel. It has a lot faster response times because 32" 4K monitors still lack 1-2 generations behind.

 

If you cannot find the Gigabyte M28U in stock, the Samsung Odyssey G7 4K model is also a good option. It performs about the same as the Gigabyte one but is slightly more expensive.

[e22big]

23 hours ago, RONOTHAN## said:

The Gigabyte M28U is a pretty good option. It's a pretty nice panel with a ton of features for a pretty good price. It has all the features you wanted with a very easy to navigate OSD. It's an inch bigger than you wanted, but the pixel density is still tight enough that it really doesn't matter. Personally I'm using the Aorus FI32U, which is basically the same monitor but with a more gamer stand and a bigger panel, and I really do like it. My biggest issue with it is that I need to have Windows scaling enabled, but that's more a problem with Windows scaling. It has very quick input switching, with a built in KVM switch as well. It has audio outs that are routed by default through USB (though I do believe you can change that to DP audio in settings). It has 4 inputs, 2 HDMI 2.1 (real 2.1, so 4k 120Hz), 1 DP1.4 with DSC, and 1 USB Type C with power delivery, also supports DP1.4 with DSC (though it needs to be enabled in the OSD).

M28U basically has zero HDR capability that OP want though - granted, HDR on nearly every monitor is very limited or not worth it anyway but if he wanted at least some of those, that monitor will be basically disqualified

[e22big]

1 hour ago, Stahlmann said:

The FI32U cannot really be used to draw too many conclusions on other models. The M28U (which i'd recommend) has a different panel. It has a lot faster response times because 32" 4K monitors still lack 1-2 generations behind.

 

If you cannot find the Gigabyte M28U in stock, the Samsung Odyssey G7 4K model is also a good option. It performs about the same as the Gigabyte one but is slightly more expensive.

And FI32U is 32 inch which OP said he wasn't interested in either

[Stahlmann]

5 minutes ago, e22big said:

M28U basically has zero HDR capability that OP want though - granted, HDR on nearly every monitor is very limited or not worth it anyway but if he wanted at least some of those, that monitor will be basically disqualified

The cheapest halfway decent HDR displays at this size start at $1500 and up. If OP isn't prepared to pay that kind of money, then HDR should basically be disqualified.

 

HDR600 options like the LG 27GN950-B and similar options don't offer any noteworthy HDR capabilities either.

[e22big]

On 1/16/2022 at 2:44 PM, RevTadd said:

I've been using two Dell 2415Qs for the past 6 or 7 years and they've been serving me well, but recently one of them (lefty) has started going on the fritz and my troubleshooting efforts have been largely unsuccessful. The downside of a two monitor set-up though means I'll need to replace both. My 2415Qs were pretty good back in the day (when there weren't many options for sub 32in 4k monitors), but monitors have come a long way since and I want to find a good replacement option that will last another 6-7 years (or more).

 

From my own researching I've been looking at the LG 27GN950-B or something similar to it, but want to make sure I haven't overlooked any good options. Any recommendations would be much appreciated.

 

What I'm looking for (generally in order of importance):

• Resolution: must be 4K, very strong preference for 120hz (or higher) but not an absolute deal breaker if 60Hz only
• Size: must be 24-27in (24in would be most preferable, but the market seems pretty limited these days for 4k 24in options)
• Inputs: must have at least 3 inputs (though if inputs 2 and 3 are only capable of 4k 60hz, that is not an issue)
• Audio: must have an audio out option to pass through audio from HDMI / DisplayPort to my speakers
• Curviture: must be flat (not curved)
• Bezels: very strong preference for super-thin bezels (or at the very least, super-thin side bezels)
• UI: strong preference for quick switchability between inputs (the slow switching of my 2415Qs has been a source of annoyance over the years)
• G-Sync: moderate preference for g-sync compatibility
• Weight: mild preference for lighter weight / thinner size so they can move around easier on my monitor arms
• HDR / color accuracy: the more capable the better, but I'm not doing any content creation or color critical work
• Response time: quicker is better, but I'm also not a competitive gamer
• Price: indifferent on price

 

 

Honestly, most will be very similar at this range anyway. Most 27 inch 4k 144hz has excellent motion performance and often very good colour reproduction accuracy. LG GN950 main drawback is the lack of HDMI 2.1 which might not be an issue if you don't plan on using it for console. 

 

HDR capability do varied significantly between models but it's typically range from meh and terrible. If you actually want some bit of that, GN950 isn't bad (relatively speaking.) If money isn't an issue the RoG model is actually better as it's does has better contrast.

 

If money really isn't an issue and you want the best of the best - no matter how small the margin. Eve Spectrum is probably the very best one out there, and also don't have the ugly gamer look (actually, it's probably the best looking gaming monitor by far) - but they are scummy and their product is very expensive (even more so when you included shipping cost, which they also like to scam you even more out of those costs)

[e22big]

4 minutes ago, Stahlmann said:

The cheapest halfway decent HDR displays at this size start at $1500 and up. If OP isn't prepared to pay that kind of money, then HDR should basically be disqualified.

 

HDR600 options like the LG 27GN950-B and similar options don't offer any noteworthy HDR capabilities either.

Yeah but they do offer at least something. HDR 600 isn't that bad compare to HDR 400, you still have some mild spectacular highlight (LG CX can't even do sustain HDR brightness as good as GN950, so it's good enough in that regard) and has limited local dimming which can help with contrast in the best case scenario. 

 

Probably not too great but it's up to OP if he wants it or not. 

[Stahlmann]

6 minutes ago, e22big said:

Yeah but they do offer at least something. HDR 600 isn't that bad compare to HDR 400, you still have some mild spectacular highlight (LG CX can't even do sustain HDR brightness as good as GN950, so it's good enough in that regard) and has limited local dimming which can help with contrast in the best case scenario. 

 

Probably not too great but it's up to OP if he wants it or not. 

The 28GN950 offers decent brightness, but only while taking away shadow detail in the process. So you lose as much as you gain, which is why i'd say it doesn't really offer anything in that regard. I had one myself and HDR basically was just an extra brightness toggle when SDR at 100% wasn't bright enough. It didn't offer significantly better picture quality in HDR. And many games even looked worse in HDR because the black level was so high (washed out picture). It realistically has zero local dimming capabilities (16 zone edge-lit) so 99% of the time all zones are active and at full brightness, even if there is only one single white pixel in the zone, resulting in a black level of around 0.7 nits (at 1000:1 contrast, which my unit roughly had), which is plain terrible.

 

So again, even this monitor doesn't offer any significant HDR capabilities. Just being brighter doesn't mean it's HDR. So i don't see it as worse than the M28U, as they're essentially both useless when it comes to HDR.

[RevTadd]

Thanks all, the Gigabyte M28U looks like a pretty good option. The 28-in is a bit larger than my target size, but I think the thin bezels should help the footprint from being too comically large with two of them side by side on my desk. The G7 4K looks a bit too gamer-ish for my taste, though. @e22big Is the ROG monitor you referred to the ROG Strix XG27UQ or were you referring to another model?

 

HDR, while a nice to have is not overally high on my priority list so I expect all of the option should be good for my use case. I'm also not fussed on pricing, I spend more time looking at my monitors than I do at my girlfriend¹ so its not an unreasonable spend to me.

 

(1) If I had a girlfriend  

[e22big]

1 hour ago, Stahlmann said:

The 28GN950 offers decent brightness, but only while taking away shadow detail in the process. So you lose as much as you gain, which is why i'd say it doesn't really offer anything in that regard. I had one myself and HDR basically was just an extra brightness toggle when SDR at 100% wasn't bright enough. It didn't offer significantly better picture quality in HDR. And many games even looked worse in HDR because the black level was so high (washed out picture). It realistically has zero local dimming capabilities (16 zone edge-lit) so 99% of the time all zones are active and at full brightness, even if there is only one single white pixel in the zone, resulting in a black level of around 0.7 nits (at 1000:1 contrast, which my unit roughly had), which is plain terrible.

 

So again, even this monitor doesn't offer any significant HDR capabilities. Just being brighter doesn't mean it's HDR. So i don't see it as worse than the M28U, as they're essentially both useless when it comes to HDR.

It's one aspect of HDR, HDR is all about imitating the real luminance perception of our eyes, that means details in shadow (so dark can look really dark), spectacular highlight (so that sunlight looks like sunlight), and realistic colour gamut (wide colour gamut.) I would argue that spectacular highlight is way more important in game than shadow details, game like Horizon Zero Dawn or Forza Horizon 5 benefit so much more from the spectacular brightness (which OLED simply failed to deliver, outdoor light in LG CX doesn't look anyway like real outdoor light in Forza at least, while it does in LCD monitor or TV, even when local dimming is off)  

 

I agree that HDR capability probably isn't worth the money but having a terrible HDR isn't the same as having no HDR at all. 

[e22big]

11 minutes ago, RevTadd said:

Thanks all, the Gigabyte M28U looks like a pretty good option. The 28-in is a bit larger than my target size, but I think the thin bezels should help the footprint from being too comically large with two of them side by side on my desk. The G7 4K looks a bit too gamer-ish for my taste, though. @e22big Is the ROG monitor you referred to the ROG Strix XG27UQ or were you referring to another model?

 

HDR, while a nice to have is not overally high on my priority list so I expect all of the option should be good for my use case. I'm also not fussed on pricing, I spend more time looking at my monitors than I do at my girlfriend¹ so its not an unreasonable spend to me.

 

(1) If I had a girlfriend  

Yeah XG27UQ

 

Also if you really don't mind spending money - or buy second hand, Predator X27 could also be an option. It's probably not even that expensive now if you can find it. That's one have HDR, not fully but at least something. But honestly, you will have to look at something the size of TV in most case to actually have a good HDR capability (without having to spend fortunes)

[RevTadd]

On 1/17/2022 at 8:50 PM, e22big said:

Honestly, most will be very similar at this range anyway. Most 27 inch 4k 144hz has excellent motion performance and often very good colour reproduction accuracy. LG GN950 main drawback is the lack of HDMI 2.1 which might not be an issue if you don't plan on using it for console. 

 

HDR capability do varied significantly between models but it's typically range from meh and terrible. If you actually want some bit of that, GN950 isn't bad (relatively speaking.) If money isn't an issue the RoG model is actually better as it's does has better contrast.

 

If money really isn't an issue and you want the best of the best - no matter how small the margin. Eve Spectrum is probably the very best one out there, and also don't have the ugly gamer look (actually, it's probably the best looking gaming monitor by far) - but they are scummy and their product is very expensive (even more so when you included shipping cost, which they also like to scam you even more out of those costs)

Thanks for the feedback so far, as one final question when you say Eve are a bit scummy, what is the history there? The monitor otherwise looks like a pretty compelling option for me so far as long as there's not any dealbreaker with the company itself. I suppose charging extra for the stand is a bit of an Apple move, but I'm going to put them on monitor arms anyway so will dodge that bullet. Is shipping cost especially bad?

[Stahlmann]

1 hour ago, RevTadd said:

Thanks for the feedback so far, as one final question when you say Eve are a bit scummy, what is the history there? The monitor otherwise looks like a pretty compelling option for me so far as long as there's not any dealbreaker with the company itself. I suppose charging extra for the stand is a bit of an Apple move, but I'm going to put them on monitor arms anyway so will dodge that bullet. Is shipping cost especially bad?

Shipping cost is bad and they have a bad reputation for actually releasing announced products (or at least in a timely manner). The monitor itself would be great if they would have released it on the originally announced date. But nowadays there are just better options that are also cheaper.

 

Tow of them being the Gigabyte M28U and Samsung Odyssey G7 4K.

[Spicedaddy]

27GN950 has been updated to 27GP950 with HDMI 2.1 support.

[e22big]

3 hours ago, RevTadd said:

Thanks for the feedback so far, as one final question when you say Eve are a bit scummy, what is the history there? The monitor otherwise looks like a pretty compelling option for me so far as long as there's not any dealbreaker with the company itself. I suppose charging extra for the stand is a bit of an Apple move, but I'm going to put them on monitor arms anyway so will dodge that bullet. Is shipping cost especially bad?

Eve.... has history of scamming people out of kickstarter project. But the Spectrum in particular seems to be a real deal, a lot of people purchased it and get it. However, it will most likey cost even more than the price they asked and can be reeeeallly slow to ship.

 

Hardware Unboxed review included the host experiences in buying this monitor. It took a long time to ship, it's expensive, and they more than likely masquraded some of the actual price as 'shipping cost' (which is why some of the people here mentioned that it has expensive shipping cost - it's absurdly expensive I can tell you)

 

But product itself is good, and Hardware Unboxed managed to get one even when purchase under completed anonymity. From design to software and performance, it's one of the best 27 inch 4k 144hz type monitor (if not the best but the margin isn't that huge compared to the competitition.)

 

The reality of it is that, most 27inch 4k 144hz perform the same regardless of the brand, some just has better features and firmwares than others. And some favour lesser HDR capability for improvement in other more useful areas (like native contrast) or forgone it completely to lower the price.  

 

 

Edited January 20, 2022 by e22big